Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:09:59.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFICACY OF RONNEL AS A POUR-ON AND COUMAPHOS AS A DUST FOR CONTROL OF CATTLE LICE1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Russell E. Wright
Russell E. Wright
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A pour-on formulation of ronnel and 1% coumaphos dust were tested for control of cattle lice under southern Ontario feedlot conditions. Moderate to heavy populations of the cattle biting louse Bovicola bovis and light populations of the sucking lice Linognathus vituli and Haematopinus eurysternus were present on the treated cattle. The ronnel and coumaphos dust gave excellent reduction of lice populations for 43 and 35 days, respectively.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 108 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 83 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

DeFoliart, G. R., Glenn, M. W., and Robb, T. R.. 1958. Field studies with systemic insecticides against cattle grubs and lice. J. econ. Ent. 51: 876–879.Google Scholar
Haufe, W. O. 1962. Control of cattle lice. Publ. Can. Dep. Agric., No. 1006.Google Scholar
Kemper, H. E., Cobett, N. G., Roberts, I. H., and Peterson, H. O.. 1948. DDT emulsions for the destruction of lice on cattle, sheep, and goats. Am. J. Vet. Res. 9: 373–378.Google Scholar
Khan, M. A. 1964. Recent developments in the control of arthropod parasites of cattle. Can. Vet. J. 5: 20–29.Google Scholar
Knapp, F. W. 1965. Low concentration of coumaphos and trichlorfon spray treatments for control of cattle lice Solenoptes capillatus and Bovicola bovis. J. econ. Ent. 58: 585.Google Scholar
Lancaster, J. L. 1962. Livestock parasite control with broad spectrum systemics. Arkansas Farm Res. 11: 7.Google Scholar
Matthysse, J. G. 1946. Cattle lice, their biology and control. Bull. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 832.Google Scholar
Matthysse, J. G., Pendleton, R. F., Padula, A., and Nielsen, G. R.. 1967. Controlling lice and chorioptic mange mites on dairy cattle. J. econ. Ent. 60: 1615–1623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGregor, W. S. 1973. New developments for controlling cattle lice. Down to Earth 28: 10–13.Google Scholar
Ontario Livestock Pesticide Subcommittee. 1974. Fly and louse control on beef cattle, Agdex 420/653; Insect control on dairy cattle, Agdex 410/653. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Factsheets.Google Scholar
Peterson, H. O., Roberts, I. H., Bechlund, W. W., and Kemper, H. E.. 1953. Anemia in cattle caused by heavy infestations of the blood-sucking louse, Haematopinus eurysternus. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 122: 373–376.Google ScholarPubMed
Rich, G. B. 1966. Pour-on systemic insecticides for the protection of calves from Linognathus vituli. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 46: 125–131.Google Scholar
Rich, G. B. and Khan, M. A.. 1964. Control of cattle grub and lice with systemic insecticides. Can. Ent. 96: 142.Google Scholar
Scharff, D. K. 1962. An investigation of the cattle louse problem. J. econ. Ent. 55: 684–688.Google Scholar
Shemanchuk, J. A., Haufe, W. O., and Thompson, C. O. M.. 1960. Anemia in range cattle heavily infested with short-nosed sucking louse, Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitz.) (Anoplura; Haematopinidae). Can. J. comp. Med. 24: 158–161.Google Scholar
Shemanchuk, J. A., Haufe, W. O., and Thompson, C. O. M. 1963. Effect of some insecticides on infestation of the short-nosed cattle louse Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitz.) (Anoplura: Haematopinidae). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 43: 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teskey, H. J. 1960. Survey of insects affecting livestock in southwestern Ontario. Can. Ent. 92: 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar